The meaning of the word 'evil'

[Malcolm Wright]

So, when you assert, "There are no objective moral truths." that is a self-defeating statement, because that would include your own truth claim. So the statement, "There are no objective moral truths" or "Nothing is truly immoral" cannot be objectively true, according to your own viewpoint. Your argument collapses.

There's a simple way out of this convenient paradox you take shelter in Lilly and that is to ask whether you can name a single absolute moral truth and demonstrate that it is absolute. For that matter, can you demonstrate any absolute at all?

If we cannot find any absolutes around us, then the paradox created by making the absolute claim that no absolutes exist becomes moot and unnecessary. We don't need to claim absolutely that no absolutes exist: it is sufficient to remind you that since you can't demonstrate a single absolute, we don't have to give any credence to your position that they do exist.

M

[jwreck]

Oh, one more thing. Why did you bring up the story of the woman who almost killed her son? Did that story make you angry?

No, stories like that don't make me angry, they make me sad. The point was that according to you that may have been evil, or not. I'm not sure what criteria there is to make something evil. Are the acts of a mentally ill person evil? Or do you have to be "sane" to commit evil?

[jwreck]

Jwreck, I want to add a few things that I didn't have time to bring up last night. My point last night was that your viewpoint is counterintuitive.

The truth is often counterintuitive.

But that's just the beginning. There are numerous problems with the belief that morality is purely subjective and that actions have no inherent meaning or value.

In addition to being counterintuitive, (which you didn't agree with, but I'd like to get back to that point later) it's also illogical.

The idea that nothing is truly moral/immoral or good/evil is in itself an idea or framework on morality. It's one that is summed up as, "Nothing is truly immoral or evil." So, when you assert, "There are no objective moral truths." that is a self-defeating statement, because that would include your own truth claim. So the statement, "There are no objective moral truths" or "Nothing is truly immoral" cannot be objectively true, according to your own viewpoint. Your argument collapses.

No, you're confusing a statement about truth with a statement about morals. The problem is your morality is so ingrained that it filters everything through morality.

Also, when we talked about actions, it seems you're basically saying that all actions are inherently meaningless. If that is your position, then that is another self-defeating assertion. Because your own action - stating that all actions are meaningless - would be without meaning or value.

There are tons of other problems with moral subjectivism, I could write a whole list here... but I'll post this now and if you still want to argue it, we can continue later or tomorrow.

Well first you have to define words like meaning and value.

[lily]

There's a simple way out of this convenient paradox you take shelter in Lilly and that is to ask whether you can name a single absolute moral truth and demonstrate that it is absolute. For that matter, can you demonstrate any absolute at all?

If we cannot find any absolutes around us, then the paradox created by making the absolute claim that no absolutes exist becomes moot and unnecessary. We don't need to claim absolutely that no absolutes exist: it is sufficient to remind you that since you can't demonstrate a single absolute, we don't have to give any credence to your position that they do exist.

M

I'm glad you're back, Malcolm. But I have to say, that doesn't refute what I said. One doesn't need to prove moral absolutism to show that moral subjectivism is illogical. The fact that it is illogical should be reason enough acknowledge that it's untrue, and why most philosophers disagree with it.

But I will answer your question, even though this is shifting into a different issue. It may not be easy to prove moral absolutes in terms of how we should treat other people. But imo it is easy to prove an absolute in terms of how we as individuals want to be treated. For example: Nobody approves of being murdered against their will. Or, nobody approves of being raped against their will.

I don't see how that can be refuted, because if you claim, "Some people want to be raped" then that ignores the "against their will" part. If someone wants to be raped, then it's not against their will.

I'm actually surprised that you of all people, Malcolm, would deny that absolutes exist. It's times like this when I wish that one poster was here.... his name is not coming to me at the moment, but he was smart and I believe a philosophy major, or at least interested in it. Anyway, IIRC, he would agree that absolute truths exist.

Also, to deny that absolute truth exists is illogical. Because the assertion, "absolute truth does not exist" would itself have to be an absolute truth, which means it is self-contradictory and self-defeating. If it's not an absolute, it's a mere opinion, and only "true" for the person who claims that, but not in reality.

[lily]

The truth is often counterintuitive.

That is absolutely false. And that statement shows me that either you don't believe in intuition, or you haven't used your intuition. Or maybe you have, but you don't realize it. It sounds like you're thinking about emotion. In that case, I would agree with you - human emotions can be deceptive, and lead people to wrong conclusions. But that's not what I was talking about at all.

No, you're confusing a statement about truth with a statement about morals.

No, you were making a statement about morality in general. That IS a statement about right and wrong, or good and evil. To say that there is no evil or that nothing is truly wrong is a moral assertion.

The problem is your morality is so ingrained that it filters everything through morality.

This is another false statement. My morality now isn't something I've had all my life. It has changed drastically, in the last 10 years or so. And it continues to slowly but surely change and progress (well, I try and God is working on me, but I digress) So your word "ingrained" implies it's something one has had since childhood and never questioned. That is not the case at all, for me.

Well first you have to define words like meaning and value.

Good question, but I think you know the answer, at least on some level. Actions usually have an intention behind them. An action signifies or means something. Let's go back to the actions we talked about before. Murdering someone can often be a physical expression of hate, selfishness or a twisted desire for power. Now let's compare that to another type of action - a parent risking their own life to save the life of their child. That is an act of love and selflessness. There is something behind the act.

So, what you were saying earlier is that there is no difference between an act of love and a vicious act such as rape/torture/murder. So what you're basically saying - what this really boils down to - is that there is no difference between love and hate, or selflessness and selfishness or goodness and evil. Those things become meaningless. I don't think that's what you really believe.

[jwreck]

Again, you're filtering everything through morality. Saying there is a big difference between absolute truth an absolute morality. Absolute truths exist. 2+2 is absolutely 4. Doesn't have anything to do with the "truth" of morality.


This is in response to post 44.

[kellyb]

The truth is often counterintuitive.

That is absolutely false.

How is it false?

The idea that the earth is round and revolves around the sun is highly counterintuitive, for example.

[kellyb]

coun·ter·in·tu·i·tive (kountr-n-t-tv, -ty-)
adj.
Contrary to what intuition or common sense would indicate

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/counterintuitive

[optimus]

Lily, counter-intuitive really only means, "different from what you might think at first." It doesn't mean, counter to your intuition. It's an annoying phrase for that reason.

[kellyb]

Lily, counter-intuitive really only means, "different from what you might think at first." It doesn't mean, counter to your intuition. It's an annoying phrase for that reason.

Doesn't that depend on how you define intuition?

[optimus]

Yeah, I guess it does.

I have an issue with the phrase because in my mind, your intuition is rarely if ever, wrong. But people confuse emotions for intuition all the time, they are not the same.

[lily]

Again, you're filtering everything through morality. Saying there is a big difference between absolute truth an absolute morality. Absolute truths exist. 2+2 is absolutely 4. Doesn't have anything to do with the "truth" of morality.


This is in response to post 44.

Malcolm said, "For that matter, can you demonstrate any absolute at all?" He seems to disbelieve in absolutes entirely, so my reply to him was appropriate.

As for what you're saying, re-read my post. I stated that it might be difficult to prove an absolute 'rule' in terms of how we treat other people. But my example was a truth about how we as individuals want to be treated. You seem to be claiming that isn't about morals at all, but what we approve of for ourselves IS a principle pertaining to right conduct. No one approves of murder for themselves, if it is against their will. This is why, on some level, everyone knows it's wrong in an external way.... with the exception of sociopaths who have no conscience at all.

[lily]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/counterintuitive

Lily, counter-intuitive really only means, "different from what you might think at first." It doesn't mean, counter to your intuition. It's an annoying phrase for that reason.

I was defining it as counter to one's intuition. Apparently it is also defined as what goes against "common sense" or (if what you're saying is true, opti) "what one might think at first." But that's not how I use the word. I use it in a more literal way.

[kellyb]

You seem to be claiming that isn't about morals at all, but what we approve of for ourselves IS a principle pertaining to right conduct. No one approves of murder for themselves, if it is against their will. This is why, on some level, everyone knows it's wrong in an external way....

I would say you feel like it's wrong in an external way.

Take war. The people of Japan surely felt like having nukes dropped on them was wrong. But does that feeling (they would probably argue "knowing") make it wrong in objective reality?

[kellyb]

I was defining it as counter to one's intuition. Apparently it is also defined as what goes against "common sense" or (if what you're saying is true, opti) "what one might think at first." But that's not how I use the word. I use it in a more literal way.

One definition of intuition is "an impression". I would define it sort of like that, combined with gut feelings. For me, intuition is the feeling of a serious suspicion.

[lily]

I would say you feel like it's wrong in an external way.

Take war. The people of Japan surely felt like having nukes dropped on them was wrong. But does that feeling (they would probably argue "knowing") make it wrong in objective reality?

Ok, let's not get muddled here. When I said, "No one approves of murder for themselves... that's why everyone knows on some level that it's wrong in an external way." - I wasn't claiming that it is people's feelings that make something objectively wrong.

I was just saying that because no one approves of murder for themselves, most people intuitively know that it's wrong, period. That's basically an acknowledgement of the Golden Rule. But I wasn't claiming that it is people's individual beliefs that make something objectively true. We haven't even gotten to what makes something objectively true yet, but I just wanted to talk about evil on this thread.

One definition of intuition is "an impression". I would define it sort of like that, combined with gut feelings. For me, intuition is the feeling of a serious suspicion.

I agree that intuitive knowledge can come in "an impression." But I think there's more to it than that. Like I said on the other thread, this is a topic that really interests me... And I think it's one that doesn't get talked about that often (in general). Probably because it's something that is hard to prove. It's self-evident.

[kellyb]

I was just saying that because no one approves of murder for themselves, most people intuitively know that it's wrong, period.

No, they feel that it's wrong. Or, they think that it must be wrong in some sort of external way. Just like the Japanese must have felt/thought about the nukes being dropped on them.

But I wasn't claiming that it is people's individual beliefs that make something objectively true.

I know.

[lily]

No, they feel that it's wrong. Or, they think that it must be wrong in some sort of external way. Just like the Japanese must have felt/thought about the nukes being dropped on them.

The word "feel" is usually associated with emotions. The word "think" is usually associated with the mind/intellect. The word "know" (in this case) is associated with intuition.

But again, I'm not saying that consensus is what makes something objectively wrong. And I wasn't claiming that it "proves" it is objectively wrong. Although I would say that a worldwide understanding of that is evidence that points toward an objective moral standard. And to be clear, I'm not claiming that evidence and proof are the same thing, because they're not.

I know.

Good.

[kellyb]

The word "feel" is usually associated with emotions. The word "think" is usually associated with the mind/intellect.

Is a wish a feeling or a thought? Or somewhere in between?

The wish is the parent of the thought.

But again, I'm not saying that consensus is what makes something objectively wrong.

I know.

And I wasn't claiming that it "proves" it is objectively wrong. Although I would say that a worldwide understanding of that is evidence that points toward an objective moral standard. And to be clear, I'm not claiming that evidence and proof are the same thing, because they're not.

You know, I almost agree there. I think that's about as objective as it can get. Even thought it's still frighteningly imperfect.

[lily]

A wish? Hmm. Let me think about that. I actually have to go do some other stuff, and get off of DA! Out of curiosity, can you explain why you say it's the 'parent of the thought'?

About the last thing you said... I get what you're saying, but I don't agree that what we just talked about (most people understanding that certain things are wrong) is as close to objective as it gets. In other words, I think there are other ways to arrive at the conclusion that there is an objective moral standard... Or at least, other evidence that points in that direction. And when one weighs all the evidence, I think it becomes it becomes clear that the objective position or 'natural law' as some people call it, is true.